Message-Id: <199601170450.GAA16070@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:47:56 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH QUERY: variant fu'ivla
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1110
Lines: 23

> So far, the Lojban
>community hasn't taken a position on whether or not these are to be
>taken as equivalent.
>
>I favor declaring them equivalent: while this limits the theoretical
>size of fu'ivla space, it makes for simplicity:  you need not remember
>whether "cipnrdodo" or "cpirdodo" is the official word for "dodo".

At this point I would favor not taking any position, though we can say that
this convention has been proposed.  There simply have not been enough fu'ivla
proposed to make statements/assumptions about conventions (hey I am wary
about lujvo/dikyjvo, and we have a LOT more usages).  When you consider
that officially the type 3 fu'ivla are kind of short-of-conventional in
the first place (since we would presume to make a Type 4 fu'ivla for
one that got used enough to warrant it), I am even more reluctant to make
official rules.

When someone actually writes a bunch of fu'ivla AND place structures for
them, then we will have some data to analyze.  But my efforts to even
get a more complete set of cultural fu'ivla, one of the more obvious needs,
continues to be stillborn.

lojbab